The relevance of scientific knowledge for science and technology policy and regulation has led to a growing debate about the role of values. This article contributes to the clarification of what specific functions cognitive and noncognitive values adopt in knowledge generation and decisions, and what consequences the operation of values has for policy making and regulation. For our analysis, we differentiate between three different types of decision approaches, each of which shows a particular constellation of cognitive and noncognitive values. Our objectives are to present a structured analysis of the varying functions that different kinds of values can adopt, as well as the value-related tensions and trade-offs they give rise to. We argue that the operation of noncognitive values in scientific knowledge generation, policy, and regulatory decision making can be understood as an enabling factor, rather than a limiting one.
AshfordN.2005. “Incorporating Science, Technology, Fairness, and Accountability in Environmental, Health, and Safety Decisions.”Human and Ecological Risk Assessment11 (1): 85–96.
2.
AshfordN.2007. “The Legacy of the Precautionary Principle in US Law: The Rise of Cost-benefit Analysis and Risk Assessment as Undermining Factors in Health, Safety and Environmental Protection.” In Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Approaches from the Nordic Countries, EU and USA, edited by SadeleerN., 352–78. London, UK: Earthscan.
3.
CranorC.1993. Regulating Toxic Substances. New York: Island Press.
4.
CranorC.1995. “The Social Benefits of Expedited Risk Assessment.”Risk Analysis15 (4): 353–8.
5.
CranorC.1997. “The Normative Nature of Risk Assessment: Features and Possibilities.”Risk: Health, Safety and Environment8 (Spring): 123–36.
6.
CranorC.1999. “Asymmetric Information, the Precautionary Principle, and Burdens of Proof.” In Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle, edited by RaffenspergerC.TicknerJ., 74–99. Washington, DC: Island Press.
7.
CranorC.2006. Toxic Torts. Science, Law and the Possibility of Justice. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
8.
CranorC.2008. “Information Generation and Use under Proposition 65.”Indiana Law Journal83 (2): 609–27.
9.
CranorC. 2011. Legally Poisoned: How the Law Puts Us at Risk from Toxicants. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
DoratoM.2004. “Epistemic and Nonepistemic Values in Science.” In Science, Values and Objectivity, edited by MachamerP.WoltersG., 52–77. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
11.
DouglasH.2000. “Inductive Risk and Values in Science.”Philosophy of Science67 (4): 559–79.
12.
DouglasH.2004. “Border Skirmishes between Science and Policy.” In Science, Values and Objectivity, edited by MachamerP.WoltersG., 220–44. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
13.
DouglasH.2006. Norms for Values in Scientific Belief Acceptance, Contributed paper-20th biennial meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association PSA 2006 Vancouver: 2–14.
14.
DouglasH.2007“Rejecting the Ideal of Value-free Science.” In Value-Free Science? edited by KincaidH.DupréJ.WylieA., 120–40. New York: Oxford University Press.
15.
DouglasH.2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-free Ideal. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
16.
DouglasM.WildavskyA.. 1982. Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.
17.
DupréJ.2007. “Fact and Value.” In Value-Free Science? edited by KincaidH.DupréJ.WylieA., 27–40. New York: Oxford University Press.
18.
ElliottK.2011a. Is a Little Pollution Good for You? Incorporating Societal Values in Environmental Research. New York: Oxford University Press.
19.
ElliottK.2011b. “Direct and Indirect Roles for Values in Science.”Philosophy of Science78 (2): 303–24.
20.
ElliotK.McKaughanD.. 2009. “How Values in Scientific Discovery and Pursuit Alter Theory Appraisal.”Philosophy of Science76 (5): 598–611.
21.
European Commission. 2000. Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle, COM 1 (2000). Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
22.
GiereR.1991. “Knowledge, Values, and Technological Decisions: A Decision Theoretic Approach.” In Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management, edited by MayoD. G.HollanderR. D., 183–203. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23.
HaackS.2008. “Proving Causation: The Holism of Warrant and the Atomism of Daubert.”Journal of Health & Biomedical Law4 (2): 253–89.
24.
HeimannC. F. L.1997. Acceptable Risks. Politics, Policy, and Risky Technologies. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
25.
KincaidH.DupréJ.WylieA., eds. 2007. Value-free Science?New York: Oxford University Press.
26.
KochL.AshfordN.. 2006. “Rethinking the Role of Information in Chemicals Policy: Implications for TSCA and REACH.”Journal of Cleaner Production14 (1): 31–46.
27.
KuhnT. S.1977. “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice.” In The Essential Tension, edited by KuhnThomas, 320–39. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
28.
LaceyH.2005. Values and Objectivity in Science. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
29.
LaudanL.1984. Science and Values. Berkeley: University of California Press.
30.
LaudanL.2004. “The Epistemic, the Cognitive and the Social.” In Science, Values and Objectivity, edited by MachamerP.WoltersG., 14–23. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
31.
LaudanL.2008. Truth, Error, and Criminal Law: An Essay in Legal Epistemology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
32.
LonginoH.1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
33.
LonginoH.2002. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
34.
LujánJ. L.2005. “Metascientific Analysis and Methodological Learning in Regulatory Science.” In Science, Technology and Society: A Philosophical Perspective, edited by GonzálezW., 83–105. La Coruña, Spain: Netbiblo.
35.
LujánJ. L.BriggleA.. 2005. “Environmental Regulation.” In Encyclopedia on Science, Technology and Ethics, edited by MitchamC., 670–6. New York: Mcmillan.
36.
LujánJ. L.TodtO.. 2007. “Precaution in Public: The Social Perception of the Role of Science and Values in Policy Making.”Public Understanding of Science16 (1): 97–109.
37.
LujánJ. L.TodtO.. 2012. “Precaution—A Taxonomy.”Social Studies of Science42 (1): 143–57.
38.
LujanJ. L.TodtO.. in press. “The Role of Values in Methodological Controversies: The Case of Risk Assessment.”Philosophia Scientiae19 (1).
39.
MachamerP.WoltersG.. 2004. Science, Values and Objectivity. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
40.
MayoD. G.1991. “Sociological versus Metascientific Views of Risk Assessment.” In Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management, edited by MayoD. G.HollanderR. D., 249–79. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41.
MayoD. G.HollanderR. D., eds. 1991. Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
42.
MayoD. G.SpanosA.. 2006. “Philosophical Scrutiny of Evidence of Risks: From Bioethics to Bioevidence.”Philosophy of Science73 (5): 803–16.
43.
MayoD. G.SpanosA., eds. 2009. Error and Inference: Recent Exchanges on Experimental Reasoning, Reliability, and the Objectivity and Rationality of Science. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
44.
McMullinE.1983. “Values in Science.” In Proceedings of the 1982 PSA, edited by AsquithP.NicklesT., 3–28. East Lansing, MI: PSA.
45.
MichaelsD.2008. Doubt Is Our Product. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
46.
MichaelsD.MonfortonC.. 2005. “Manufacturing Uncertainty.”American Journal of Public Health95 (supplement 1): 39–49.
47.
MitchellS.2004. “The Prescribed and Proscribed Values in Science Policy.” In Science, Values and Objectivity, edited by MachamerP.WoltersG., 245–55. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
48.
MurphyJ.LevidowL.CarrS.. 2006. “Regulatory Standard for Environmental Risks.”Social Studies of Science36 (1): 133–60.
49.
National Research Council. 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
50.
ProctorR. N.1991. Value-free Science? Purity and Power in Modern Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
51.
RavetzJ.1997. “The Science of ‘What-If ’.”Futures29 (6): 533–39.
52.
RudénC.HanssonS.. 2010. “Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH) Is but a First Step—How Far Will It Take Us?”Environmental Health Perspectives118 (1): 6–10.
53.
Shrader-FrechetteK.1989. “Scientific Progress and Models of Justification.” In Science, Technology, and Social Progress, edited by GoldmanS., 196–226. London, UK: Associated University Presses.
54.
Shrader-FrechetteK.1994. Ethics of Scientific Research. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
55.
Shrader-FrechetteK.1997. “Hydrogeology and Framing Questions Having Policy Consequences.”Philosophy of Science64 (4): S149–60.
56.
Shrader-FrechetteK.2001. “Radiobiological Hormesis, Methodological Value Judgments, and Metascience.”Perspectives on Science8 (4): 367–79.
57.
Shrader-FrechetteK.2004. “Using Metascience to Improve Dose-response Curves in Biology: Better Policy through Better Science.”Philosophy of Science71 (5): 1026–37.
58.
Shrader-FrechetteK.2010. “Conceptual Analysis and Special-interest Science: Toxicology and the Case of Edward Calabrese.”Synthese177 (3): 449–69.
59.
Shrader-FrechetteK.2011. What Will Work. Fighting Climate Change with Renewable Energy, Not Nuclear Power. New York: Oxford University Press.
60.
SolomonM.2001. Social Empiricism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
61.
SteelD.2010. “Epistemic Values and the Argument from Inductive Risk.”Philosophy of Science77 (1): 14–34.
62.
StirlingA.2007. “Risk, Precaution and Science: Towards a More Constructive Policy Debate.”EMBO reports8 (4): 309–15.
63.
TodtO.2011. “The Limits of Policy: Public Acceptance and the Reform of Science and Technology Governance.”Technological Forecasting & Social Change78 (6): 902–9.
64.
TodtO.Gutiérrez-GraciaA.Fernández de LucioI.Castro-MartínezE.. 2007. “The Regional Dimension of Innovation and the Globalization of Science.”R & D Management37 (1): 65–74.
65.
TodtO.LujánJ. L.. 2008. “A New Social Contract for Technology?—On the Policy Dynamics of Uncertainty.”Journal of Risk Research11 (4): 509–23.
66.
TodtO.MuñozE.GonzálezM.PonceG.EstévezB.. 2009. “Consumer Attitudes and the Governance of Food Safety.”Public Understanding of Science18 (1): 103–14.
67.
TodtO.Rodríguez AlcázarJ.LujánJ. L.. 2010. “Practical Values and Uncertainty in Regulatory Decision-making.”Social Epistemology24 (4): 349–62.
68.
WandallB.2004. “Values in Science and Risk Assessment.”Toxicology Letters152 (3): 265–72.
69.
WandallB.HanssonS.RudénC.. 2007. “Bias in Toxicology.”Archives of Toxicology81 (9): 605–17.
70.
WeedD.2005. “Weight of Evidence.”Risk Analysis25 (6): 1545–57.
71.
WilholtT.2009. “Bias and Values in Scientific Research.”Studies in History and Philosophy of Science40 (1): 92–101.
72.
WorrallJ.1988. “The Value of a Fixed Methodology.”British Journal for the Philosophy of Science39 (2): 263–75.
73.
WynneB.1992a. “Uncertainty and Environmental Learning: Reconceiving Science and Policy in the Preventive Paradigm.”Global Environmental Change2 (2): 111–27.
74.
WynneB.1992b. “Risk and Social Learning: Reification to Engagement.” In Social Theories of Risk, edited by KrimskyS.GoldingD., 279–97. Westport: Praeger.
